Please allow the pack to be installed under Windows XP, while that is possible. Most optimal time to forbid installation only when at least some one component of the pack really will not work under this OS.

All important components have already dropped support for XP. Current installers contain two copies of those components. What is in the current version is the best that you will ever get on XP, because there won't be newer versions of those components for XP.

Horrible? That OS has had its support dropped for years. Plus the fact that at some point there is nothing to improve anymore for an OS(unless a new format gets supported). If you want the latest version i recommend you to upgrade to Windows 7(should be possible on almost all XP machines).

You forget about netbooks on Atom with weak built-in video which guzzles throughput of RAM. On WinXP I watch video in 1080p with 60 FPS. On Win7 brakes even 720p 30 FPS. The systems above WinXP have a fucking snail video subsystem. Plus systems above WinXP is a snail in general.WinXP is a great system for those who has a weak HW and don't need 3D Gaming, the beauty of the interface, DX10-12.Yes this is possible to install Win7-10, but this is be a horroble, incompatible with life, speed of PC.

Then stick with Windows XP on the current version(for the love of god keep it off the internet). It works great as you said it yourself. There's no need to keep releasing more/new builds of LAV filters on XP, there's almost no benefit. Plus, it's additional work for the developers of such tools, and forces them to keep old XP code intact. Give me a good reason why ancient XP netbooks with 10 year old technology should be kept supported?

I tested performance of decoding AVC/H264 with latest FFDShow and LAV decoder. LAV was faster. New versions generally have the advantage in performance, corrected bugs. Most of the cases it can support the new functionality. An exception is work with DXVA 2.0. Here the quote from LAV: "LAV Filters work on Vista/7/8/8.1 and Windows 10. Older versions of Windows are not supported.Note that some functionality may require newer operating systems (primarily hardware acceleration options)."

In this case the stumbling block, as always, was one of the corporations of good - Microsoft, which needs to get the user to switch to new operating systems at all costs. There are no other real reasons. LAV quote: "It may be possible that this is the last major version to work on Windows XP. I'm working on some new module that requires D3D functionality thats not available in the Windows SDK used when building with XP support, and using a newer SDK automatically removes XP support.More details on this will follow as this feature is being developed."New functionality like "3D Glasses" etc. on WinXP not really needed. But support for new formats (it is possible), faster and error free versions would be nice.

P.S.By the way as you say 10-year technology now everywhere is used in ATMs. The same WinXP with longer support. Called "Windows XP Embedded".

Lite wrote:I tested performance of decoding AVC/H264 with latest FFDShow and LAV decoder. LAV was faster. New versions generally have the advantage in performance, corrected bugs. Most of the cases it can support the new functionality. An exception is work with DXVA 2.0. Here the quote from LAV: "LAV Filters work on Vista/7/8/8.1 and Windows 10. Older versions of Windows are not supported.Note that some functionality may require newer operating systems (primarily hardware acceleration options)."

In this case the stumbling block, as always, was one of the corporations of good - Microsoft, which needs to get the user to switch to new operating systems at all costs. There are no other real reasons. LAV quote: "It may be possible that this is the last major version to work on Windows XP. I'm working on some new module that requires D3D functionality thats not available in the Windows SDK used when building with XP support, and using a newer SDK automatically removes XP support.More details on this will follow as this feature is being developed."New functionality like "3D Glasses" etc. on WinXP not really needed. But support for new formats (it is possible), faster and error free versions would be nice.

P.S.By the way as you say 10-year technology now everywhere is used in ATMs. The same WinXP with longer support. Called "Windows XP Embedded".

By SDK he probably means the Windows SDK and VS2017. These both contain stuff that older versions of the SDK don't. Meaning more functions, better optimization, etc.

Also: You are saying that the only reason you would upgrade OS is because Microsoft wants you to, and not because it just much more modern.

If you can't afford a newer device with more modern hardware and more RAM to use a more modern OS, then you shouldn't complain about developers not supporting an ancient OS. Taking their spare time to create free software. The 3% people that still use Windows XP is just not worth developing with old code over. The same goes to Microsoft; Why would they have to back-port every functionality over to an old and ancient OS?

Developing costs time and the more you try to live in the past, the harder it becomes/the longer it takes to work on the future

P.S.: Windows Embedded is not for consumer/HTPC/Entertainment use, it is for things such as ATM that it is still supported. The only reason Windows XP Embedded is still supported is because governments paid for it.

I use this and many more settings, but it's like the dead pouches. This does not affect slow video subsystem (WDDM).No matter how you try, it will be much slower than WinXP.

Even the banal disabling of the PerformanceCounters in WinXP disables them completely, while in Win7 and above, they continue to lean performance and they simply need to be cut out. Look here: HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Perflib\009\Counter

Most of the code relies on the assembler. From the compiler's standpoint, the differences between the OS are not as huge as you might think.

By the way Windows 7 soon will experience the same participation and it is better to look in the direction of Windows 8. But 8 did not have much time left too.

That's the thing. Older hardware is designed to run on older OS's and it will obviously be slower on an OS with much more and newer software and hardware technologies. Try running a Kaby Lake CPU and a 1080 on Windows XP and all hell will break lose. The technologies and drivers that this hardware uses to make it fast just doesn't work on an old OS like XP. Sure MS could probably backport all those technologies(WDDM, EVR, DirectX11+, etc) back to XP to make it work, but then the end result would be that you'd get the same performance in XP as you would get in 7 now due to the extra resources those technologies take, you'd essentially reinvented the wheel. Microsoft also has a product to sell, so why give new development for free? Windows Vista was made almost entirely from scratch, and all current Windows versions are built upon that, even Windows 10.

Mr. notcyf, do not be a marketer :-) There is a huge number of reasons why people need WinXP. For example, I need it for programs and games that do not work in other versions. You do not understand such reasons, but this does not mean that you need to convince people to change the operating system for the sake of one thing, for example, codecs - this is the height of stupidity. If a person asks about how to be with his environment, he does not count on the advice "change the operating system" :-) It's not so simple and it's possible how to install codecs. And iron has absolutely nothing to do with it, it's just one of many special cases.

Mr. Lite, today I do not know such a video format that would not work in the current version of K-Lite on WinXP. Therefore, your panic is in vain. I think that in the next 7-10 years this will not be a problem :-)